Therapeutic aquatic exercise in the treatment of low back pain: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of therapeutic aquatic exercise in the treatment of low back pain. DESIGN: A systematic review. METHODS: A search was performed of PEDro, CINAHL (ovid), PUBMED, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and SPORTDiscus databases to identify relevant studies published between 1990 and 2007. POPULATION: Adults suffering from low back pain. INTERVENTION: All types of therapeutic aquatic exercise. COMPARISON: All clinical trials using a control group. OUTCOMES: Oswestry Disability Index, McGill Pain Questionnaire, subjective assessment scale for pain (e.g. visual analogue scale) and number of work days lost as a direct result of low back pain. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale and the SIGN 50 assessment forms. RESULTS: Thirty-seven trials were found and seven were accepted into the review. Therapeutic aquatic exercise appeared to have a beneficial effect, however, no better than other interventions. Methodological quality was considered low in all included studies. The heterogeneity among studies, in numbers of subjects, symptoms durations, interventions and reporting of outcomes, precluded any extensive meta-analysis of the results. CONCLUSION: There was sufficient evidence to suggest that therapeutic aquatic exercise is potentially beneficial to patients suffering from chronic low back pain and pregnancy-related low back pain. There is further need for high-quality trials to substantiate the use of therapeutic aquatic exercise in a clinical setting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".